The Question of the "Best Pope": A Misguided Pursuit

The Question of the "Best Pope": A Misguided Pursuit

The question of who is the "best pope" is one that surfaces from time to time, often sparked by debates among Catholics, historians, or cultural commentators. It’s a question that seems to invite comparison, as if the papacy were a contest to be judged by human standards. However, this framing is fundamentally flawed and misunderstands the nature of the papacy, the role of divine providence, and the unique challenges each pope faces in their time. To rank popes or label one as "better" than another is to impose a worldly lens on a divine institution, ignoring the belief that God chooses the right pope for the right time. The Papacy: A Divine Appointment, Not a Competition The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit guides the selection of the pope, ensuring that the successor of St. Peter is the one needed for the Church’s mission in that particular era. Each pope, from St. Peter to the present, has been called to lead the Church through specific historical, spiritual, and cultural circumstances. To compare them as "better" or "worse" is to overlook the unique context of their leadership and the divine purpose behind their election. For example, St. John Paul II’s papacy (1978–2005) was marked by his global evangelization, his role in the fall of communism, and his theological contributions like the Theology of the Body. His charismatic presence and intellectual rigor were suited to a world grappling with ideological conflicts and secularism. Contrast this with Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013), whose scholarly approach and emphasis on liturgical renewal addressed a Church navigating the complexities of modernity and internal theological debates. Pope Francis (2013–2023), with his focus on mercy, social justice, and outreach to the marginalized, responded to a world marked by economic inequality, migration crises, and environmental concerns. Each of these popes faced distinct challenges, and their approaches were shaped by the needs of their time. To declare one "better" than another is to ignore the fact that their missions were not interchangeable. God’s providence, Catholics believe, ensures that the right leader emerges for the Church’s needs, just as a shepherd is chosen for the flock’s specific journey. The Danger of Judging Popes: The Case of Pope Francis The temptation to rank popes becomes particularly problematic when it turns into judgment or division within the Church. Following the death of Pope Francis in 2023, some traditionalist Catholics labeled him the "worst pope ever," criticizing his emphasis on inclusivity, his perceived ambiguity on doctrinal matters, and his reforms as departures from tradition. Such critiques often overlook the context of his papacy and the significant growth the Church experienced under his leadership. Under Pope Francis, the Catholic Church saw notable expansion, particularly in regions like Africa and Asia, where the faith continued to flourish despite global secular trends. His encyclicals, such as Laudato Si’ and Fratelli Tutti, addressed pressing global issues like climate change and human fraternity, resonating with millions and bringing the Church’s voice to contemporary debates. His emphasis on synodality fostered greater dialogue within the Church, encouraging lay participation and collaboration among bishops. To reduce his papacy to a caricature of "progressivism" is to ignore these accomplishments and the broader mission he undertook. Moreover, labeling any pope as the "worst" disregards the belief that God’s will operates through the papacy, even in its human imperfections. The Bible itself offers a sobering reminder: even Judas Iscariot was chosen by Christ for a purpose, despite his betrayal. Similarly, every pope, with their strengths and weaknesses, plays a role in God’s plan for the Church. To judge them harshly or rank them competitively risks fostering division among the faithful, undermining the unity that the papacy is meant to embody. Why Catholics Should Avoid Ranking Popes The urge to rank popes often stems from personal biases or preferences—whether theological, cultural, or political. Some may favor a pope who aligns with their vision of the Church, whether traditional, progressive, or otherwise. But the papacy is not a popularity contest, nor is it about fulfilling individual expectations. It is about stewardship, service, and fidelity to Christ’s mission, carried out in the context of a specific historical moment. Instead of ranking popes, Catholics are called to pray for them, support their leadership, and trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The Church’s history is replete with popes who faced criticism in their time—some for being too conservative, others for being too reformist—yet their contributions often became clearer with hindsight. St. Pius V, for instance, was a towering figure of the Counter-Reformation, standardizing the Roman Missal, but his stern approach was controversial in his day. Similarly, Pope Leo XIII’s *Rerum Novarum* laid the foundation for modern Catholic social teaching, yet it challenged the economic status quo of the late 19th century. Each pope’s legacy is best understood not in isolation or competition but as part of the Church’s ongoing journey. To focus on ranking them is to miss the forest for the trees, reducing a divine institution to a human scorecard. Trusting God’s Choice The question of the "best pope" is not only unanswerable but also unhelpful. It distracts from the deeper truth that God chooses the right pope for the right time, equipping them to face the challenges of their era. Whether it’s navigating wars, heresies, cultural shifts, or internal reforms, each pope’s mission is unique, and their success cannot be measured by worldly standards or personal preferences. As Catholics, our task is not to judge or rank popes but to support the Church’s mission through prayer, charity, and unity. The criticisms leveled against Pope Francis after his death serve as a reminder of the dangers of such judgment. Even in moments of disagreement, Catholics are called to trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, just as it has for over two millennia. Rather than debating who was the "best" or "worst," let us give thanks for the papacy itself—a enduring sign of God’s faithfulness to His people, through every season and challenge.

Refuting Claims of the Term “Novus Ordo” in Reference to the Mass of Paul VI: A Response to @pluant ’s Assertions

Refuting Claims of the Term “Novus Ordo” in Reference to the Mass of Paul VI: A Response to 

@pluant

’s Assertions

The X account

@pluant

has repeatedly claimed that Pope Paul VI used the term “Novus Ordo” to refer to the post-Vatican II Mass, often contrasting it with the “Traditional Latin Mass” or Tridentine Mass as a distinct and inferior rite. These claims contribute to a broader narrative among some Catholic traditionalists that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969, represents a rupture from Catholic tradition. This post refutes

@pluant

’s assertions, specifically addressing their exchanges with

@Sacerdotus

, by examining the historical, theological, and documentary evidence surrounding the terminology of the Mass. It demonstrates that Paul VI did not use “Novus Ordo” as an official title for the Mass, that the term is informal and not found in key liturgical documents, and that the Mass, by default, is traditional within the unified Roman Rite, as clarified by the Church.

See, it is not mentioning the Mass. pic.twitter.com/OEq2YBw34o

— ☧✝️Sacerdotus™⚛✡🇻🇦☧ (@Sacerdotus) May 25, 2025

@pluant

’s Claims and Context

In a series of X posts,

@pluant

has engaged with

@Sacerdotus

, asserting that the term “Novus Ordo” is an appropriate designation for the post-Vatican II Mass and implying its use by Paul VI. For example:

• On May 24, 2025,

  @pluant

  tweeted, “The Novus Ordo is already hyper clericalist. It is overloaded with options, all at the cleric’s discretion. The genius of the Old Rite is that everyone is equally a servant of the rite” (

  @pluant

  , May 24, 2025). This post uses “Novus Ordo” to contrast the Ordinary Form with the “Old Rite,” suggesting a fundamental difference in nature.
• On May 26, 2025,

  @pluant

  stated, “It’s always really been about eliminating anything vaguely traditional from the Novus Ordo” (

  @pluant

  , May 26, 2025), reinforcing the notion that the “Novus Ordo” is a deliberate departure from tradition.
• In response to

  @Sacerdotus

  ’s challenge on May 31, 2025, that “Novus Ordo Missae” does not mean “Novus Ordo Mass” and is absent from the 1970 Roman Missal,

  @pluant

  persisted in defending the term’s usage, citing Paul VI’s alleged endorsement (

  @pluant

  , May 31, 2025).

These claims align with a traditionalist narrative that the post-Vatican II Mass, often called “Novus Ordo,” is a modernist innovation, distinct from the traditional Mass.

@pluant

’s posts reflect a misunderstanding of liturgical terminology and Church teaching, as well as a rejection of the unity of the Roman Rite, which comprises two expressions: the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

Refutation: The Term “Novus Ordo” in Official Usage

Contrary to

@pluant

’s assertions, the term “Novus Ordo” is not an official title used by the Church or Pope Paul VI to designate the revised Roman Missal of 1969. The following points clarify this:

1. Official Documents and Paul VI’s Terminology:
   • The apostolic constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969), promulgated by Paul VI, does not use “Novus Ordo” or “Novus Ordo Missae” to describe the revised Mass. Instead, it refers to the “Roman Missal, renewed by decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council” (Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum) (Paul VI, 1969). This emphasizes continuity with the Roman Rite, not a new or separate liturgy.
   • In his November 26, 1969, general audience address, Paul VI described the revised Mass as a “new rite of the Mass” but clarified, “It is not a new Mass, but a new form of celebration” (Paul VI, 1969). This statement, cited by

     @Sanothomas

     , underscores that Paul VI viewed the reform as a development within the existing Roman Rite, not a novel creation. The phrase “novus Ordo Missae” appears in a 1976 address, but only descriptively, as “the new Order has been promulgated” (novus Ordo promulgatus est), not as an official title (Paul VI, 1976).
   • The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and other liturgical documents, such as the 1970, 1975, and 2002 editions of the Missal, consistently use “Roman Missal” or “Order of Mass” (Ordo Missae), without adopting “Novus Ordo” as a formal term (GIRM, 2002).
2. Origin of “Novus Ordo”:
   • The term “Novus Ordo Missae” emerged in the context of the 1969 Ordo Missae (Order of Mass), a liturgical book outlining the revised rite. However, it was not an official title but a shorthand used by some liturgists and critics, notably in the “Ottaviani Intervention” (1969), where Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci critiqued the “Novus Ordo Missae” as a departure from Trent’s theology (Ottaviani & Bacci, 1969). The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded on November 12, 1969, calling their critique “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional, and false,” and Paul VI incorporated some of their feedback into the final Missal, indicating responsiveness rather than endorsement of the term (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1969).
   • Yves Chiron notes that the term gained traction among traditionalists as a pejorative label, not as an official designation, and was rarely used by Paul VI except in passing (Chiron, 2021). The Church’s preference, as clarified by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum (2007), is to refer to the 1969 Missal as the Ordinary Form and the 1962 Missal as the Extraordinary Form, emphasizing their unity within the Roman Rite (Benedict XVI, 2007).
3. Church Teaching on the Unity of the Roman Rite:
   • The Church teaches that the Roman Rite has one Mass with two valid expressions, both traditional by nature. Benedict XVI stated, “The two Roman Missals, although four centuries have intervened, embrace one and the same tradition” (GIRM, 6). The Ordinary Form retains the essential structure of the Tridentine Mass, including the Penitential Rite, Gloria, Scripture readings, Roman Canon, and Communion Rite, with adaptations for accessibility and inculturation (Faggioli, 2012).
   • @pluant

     ’s claim that the “Novus Ordo” is “hyper clericalist” or a modernist deviation (

     @pluant

     , May 24, 2025) ignores the sacrificial nature of the Ordinary Form, explicitly affirmed in the GIRM (e.g., “my sacrifice and yours”) and the Catechism (1366-1367). The flexibility of the Ordinary Form, such as multiple Eucharistic Prayers, reflects Vatican II’s call for active participation and cultural adaptation, not a rejection of tradition (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 37-40).

Why

@pluant

’s Claims Are Incorrect

@pluant

’s assertions are flawed for several reasons:

• Misattribution of Terminology: By claiming Paul VI used “Novus Ordo” as an official title,

  @pluant

  misrepresents the historical record. Paul VI’s rare use of “novus Ordo Missae” was descriptive, not titular, and his primary focus was on the Mass’s continuity with tradition (Paul VI, 1969). The 1970 Roman Missal and subsequent documents avoid the term, favoring “Roman Missal” or “Order of Mass” (GIRM, 2002).
• False Dichotomy:

  @pluant

  ’s contrast between the “Novus Ordo” and the “Old Rite” (

  @pluant

  , May 24, 2025) perpetuates a false dichotomy, ignoring the Church’s teaching that both forms are expressions of the same Roman Rite. This view aligns with traditionalist narratives that reject Vatican II’s legitimacy, resembling the Pharisaical legalism critiqued in Matthew 23:23 for prioritizing ritual over charity and obedience.
• Lack of Canonical Support: The insistence on “Novus Ordo” as a distinct, inferior rite lacks support in Church documents.

  @Sacerdotus

  correctly notes, “The correct term for the Mass of Paul VI is the ORDINARY FORM” (

  @Sacerdotus

  , May 31, 2025), aligning with Summorum Pontificum and the GIRM.

  @pluant

  ’s rejection of this terminology reflects a broader disobedience to Church authority, a trait noted in traditionalist circles (Ripperger, 2019).

Psychological and Ideological Context

@pluant

’s persistence in using “Novus Ordo” pejoratively may reflect psychological tendencies observed in some traditionalists, such as neurotic fixation on liturgical purity or narcissistic grandiosity in claiming superior understanding of Catholic tradition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These traits can foster a siege mentality, where traditionalists view themselves as defenders against a “modernist” Church, as described by Naumescu (2002). This mindset may drive

@pluant

’s dismissal of the Ordinary Form as “hyper clericalist” or a tool to “eliminate” tradition (

@pluant

, May 24-26, 2025), despite the Church’s affirmation of its validity and traditional roots.

Conclusion

The claims by

@pluant

that Pope Paul VI used “Novus Ordo” to designate the post-Vatican II Mass as a distinct rite are incorrect. Official documents, including Missale Romanum (1969) and Summorum Pontificum (2007), confirm that the term is informal, not titular, and that Paul VI emphasized the Mass’s continuity with tradition. The Roman Rite comprises one Mass with two expressions—Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms—both traditional and valid.

@pluant

’s rhetoric, as seen in their X posts to

@Sacerdotus

, perpetuates a divisive narrative that contradicts Church teaching and may reflect underlying ideological or psychological rigidity. Catholics are called to unity and obedience, recognizing the Mass’s sacrificial essence across both forms, as affirmed by the Magisterium.

References

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Arlington, VA: APA.
• Benedict XVI. (2007). Summorum Pontificum. Vatican City.
• Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
• Chiron, Y. (2021). How the Novus Ordo Mass Was Made. Church Life Journal.
• Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (1969). Response to the Short Critical Study. Vatican City.
• Faggioli, M. (2012). Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning. Paulist Press.
• General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). (2002). United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
• Ottaviani, A., & Bacci, A. (1969). Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. Rome.
• Paul VI. (1969). Missale Romanum. Vatican City.
• Paul VI. (1969). General Audience Address, November 26. Vatican City.
• Paul VI. (1976). Address at Consistory, May 24. Vatican City.
• Ripperger, C. (2019). 10 Problems in the Traditional Catholic Movement. Tumblar House.
• Sacrosanctum Concilium. (1963). Vatican City: Second Vatican Council.
• Wikipedia. (2002). Traditionalist Catholicism.
• X Posts:

  @pluant

  , May 24-31, 2025;

  @Sacerdotus

  , May 31, 2025;

  @Sanothomas

  , May 30, 2025.